This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Biden already did that. Biden’s first months were spent canceling even good or anodyne Trump orders. That’s how we got a crisis at the border and the Afghan deal changing. They undid Trump’s order about creating a statue garden.
Maybe you don’t understand the issue here.
The issue is not that Joe Biden didn’t check all his boxes and dot his eyes when filling out paperwork so now Trump has the excuse.
The issue is that there is good proof Biden didn’t himself actually issue the orders signed under his name.
What makes an executive order or pardon valid? Well, it’s issued by the President. That’s how that works.
I, the poster Shakes, could issue an executive order banning tuna on toast. Who cares? Nobody, I’m not the president.
I could sign Joe Biden’s name on the executive order banning tuna on toast. Who cares? I’m not the president.
What if I sign my executive order from the Oval Office? And I use a Joe Biden’s name? And Joe Biden is taking a nap?
It is alleged that scores of presidential decisions were made by presidential aides acting without presidential authority. Because Joe Biden was obviously going senile in the Oval Office. (The official story is Biden just decided to sign an order dropping out of the 2024 race one day. The official story is Biden was diagnosed with this rare slow-growing cancer only after his term ended.)
Republicans in the House are actively investigating the possibility that Biden staffers sold pardons to anyone willing to pay the bribe. Are those valid pardons merely because someone stamped Biden’s signature on them while he was taking a nap?
So it’s not impressive if you suggest that, to diffuse this crisis, Biden could have one of his aides issue a denial…
If we're talking historical precedent, presidents and their close circles have played fast and loose with the 'rules' (which aren't actually codified really) for literal decades, which to me again says that if something is done against their will, it's on them personally to reverse it. For example, FDR somewhat infamously had tons of stuff done by his wife in his name, as just a baseline example.
In that light, Biden and Autopen modern criticism is a pairing that looks a lot like the famous isolated demand for rigor.
What if I drug the president and lock him in a wheelchair so me and five aides can run a shadow presidency? What does historical precedent say about the case where I keep the president in a back room and you aren’t allowed to see him? Am I a hypocrite if I think that’s different from a secretary lying?
If you drug the President against his will, that’s obviously a crime. And I’m quite skeptical you could get away with it as a premeditated act. It’s really no different than people who worry about the President getting personally blackmailed - yes, it’s technically a risk, maybe even a real one, but it’s a crime that stands on its own, not one we need to try and catch in the second degree
Who’s going to prosecute? Everyone is treating Trump attacking the autopen as more ridiculous than the autopen itself
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They call that the Woodrow Wilson administration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are correct, I don't understand the issue here - thank you for the explanation. I was thinking here like Jill Biden, but I see now that wouldn't be terribly convincing.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link